The president and six board members of a major LGBT civil rights organization …

Share this story

May 31, 2011 was a perfectly nice day in Los Angeles, California—a few patchy clouds on the horizon, but nothing to worry about. It's unlikely that the staff of the Wilshire Boulevard-based Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) saw the thunderstorm approaching as they submitted commentary to Julius Genachowski, Chair of the Federal Communications Commission, in support of AT&T's plan to buy T-Mobile USA for $39 billion.

"The LGBT community is a mirror of America's larger society and it is through that prism that we view this proposed merger," GLAAD's letter declared. "What our community wants in wireless phone and Internet service is exactly what Americans in general want: more access, faster service, and competitive pricing. On all three counts, we believe that the facts strongly favor the merger."

"In the end, the attention from inside and outside the LGBT media became too much and Barrios resigned despite signals 24 hours earlier that he wasn't going to," media columnist Michael Triplett observed as the bloodbath took place. "The story had a crowd-sourcing feel to it, with many journalists and activists poring over letters to the FCC, GLAAD and AT&T financial records, and other data in order to determine what happened between AT&T and GLAAD."

GLAAD's backing of the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile marriage may have shocked LGBT activists, but it didn't surprise us. We've been following these merger proceedings for years. Every one of them—AT&T/BellSouth, Sirius/XM, Comcast/NBCU—was accompanied by a flurry of yea sayings from influential nonprofits which, like GLAAD, take thousands or even millions of dollars from the merger applicants.

And when the FCC considered its net neutrality rules, the nonprofit commentaries flowed like high speed data. Our examination of a letter written by 19 civil rights groups questioning open Internet rules found that most were recipients of Comcast, AT&T, or Verizon money. In the case of LULAC, a single grant came to $1.5 million. Groups that we have spoken with always deny any sort of outright opinion selling.

What startled us in this latest case was that a critical mass of regular people (as opposed to the usual policy wonks) actually noticed and objected to one of these endorsements. Given the heightened sensitivity to this issue, are there precautions that non-profits can take when approached to make one of these statements?

There are at least three. But first, the rest of this story.

Thank you

"The LGBT community has a longstanding commitment to all forms of social justice," the GLAAD letter continued. "That is why we look at the deployment of faster wireless Internet options not only from financial and technological viewpoints but also in terms of how this improves society." New healthcare options, more opportunities for the arts—these were some of the potential benefits of the union, said the group.

"What is a gay rights organization doing weighing in on a phone company merger?" he rhetorically asked. "I have an AT&T iPhone and the coverage sucks and is getting worse, so hey, I'm all for AT&T improving the quality of their service. But my sexual orientation has exactly zero to do with my phone service."

"Well, that's not entirely true... " Aravosis added. The gist of his protest was that AT&T, like many big corporations, belongs to the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce, which successfully lobbied for a bill that would limit civil rights protections for LGBT citizens of that state.

"That AT&T," the post continued. "The AT&T that weighed in early with a statement, when we asked the 13 companies to disavow the legislation and call on the governor to veto, but then whose statement pretty much didn't say anything. The AT&T then that e-mailed me multiple additional statements AFTER the governor signed the hateful bill into law."

These remarks were huzzahed by a long string of bitter comments. "Step right up! Step right up!" declared one. "Fake gay organizations for sale! Low, low prices!"

"This is a perfect example of an LGBT organization that is inherently self-important and corrupted by the cocktail party circuit," added another post.

Why the hell?

Much of the LGBT press quickly followed suit. "Why The Hell Is GLAAD Supporting The AT&T And T-Mobile Merger?" asked QUEERTY a day later. The commentary noted that one of GLAAD's board members is an ex-AT&T lobbyist. Politico reports that the board member in question may have approached GLAAD and other gay rights groups with the letter (he has also resigned).

"A case of secret backroom circle-jerking?" QUEERTY caustically wondered. "Most interestingly, AT&T is against Net Neutrality—the principle stating that all information on the web should get delivered at the same speed, not at different speeds and prices depending on who owns the service)."

Actually, AT&T's position on net neutrality goes hot and cold with changing circumstances. The company agreed to honor open Internet principles when it received FCC permission to buy BellSouth, then opposed them, but of late has more or less acceded to the Commission's latest (and modest) provisions--or at least it doesn't loudly denounce them.

But GLAAD quickly responded that the merger endorsement didn't indicate that it agreed with AT&T's perceived position on net neutrality:

This morning reports ran regarding GLAAD's position on a merger between AT&T and T-Mobile and put forth false accusations that GLAAD is unable to effectively work with media entities that we also receive corporate sponsorships from. We take these characterizations of our work extremely seriously.

It was also wrongly reported that GLAAD endorses AT&T's position on net neutrality. GLAAD does not endorse AT&T's position. GLAAD believes that equal, fair and universal access to the internet is vital to our community and to our national dialogue.

QUEERTY's updated response was unimpressed by this statement.

"GLAAD says it doesn't share AT&T's stance on Net Neutrality which is a bit like Target saying it doesn't share a Minnesota Republican's anti-gay views while still supporting his pro-business campaign," the post declared. "GLAAD can't support one without also supporting the other, whether they disagree or not."

Two weeks of blogospheric frenzy later, GLAAD disclosed that President Barrios had quit.

"I have been pained by the difficulties that have beset GLAAD over the last three weeks," Barrios' e-mail statement to the board noted:

As you know, they concern GLAAD's endorsement of the AT&T / T-Mobile merger—and inaccurate but effective characterizations that suggest GLAAD has supported this merger because of our relationship with them as a corporate sponsor. As many of you have observed to me, this entire situation is wrought with miscommunication and assumptions. Be that as it may, I respect the function and responsibility of my position, and know this is the right course of action.

New rules

Whatever you think of this brouhaha, it suggests that non-profits won't be endorsing these merger transactions in the future without heightened scrutiny from their activist members and allies. Few such activists appear to believe board chairs who say that the corporate money their organizations receive play no factor in issuing a merger statement. While many groups will be able to continue signing boilerplate blessings to whatever anti-trust waiver their benefactor seeks, some outfits will discover, like GLAAD, that the price tag for this sort of cooperation is dangerously high.

If you oversee one of these outfits, here are three ways to head off a GLAAD-like denouement.

1. Take the in-your-face business/tech reporter test. Imagine that a couple of days following the release of your endorsement letter, some journalist from the business press buttonholes you at a benefit dinner or similar event. "Can you elaborate on why you think this merger will deliver technological improvements that will help your members?" she asks.

Do you see yourself stumbling through some awkward commentary, wishing that you had more carefully read the merger FAQ you were given by the letter's requester? In that case, you might want to consider telling your corporate benefactor that you are a Luddite, this matter is beyond your comprehension, and your organization doesn't weigh in on subjects that you don't understand. The confession might be embarrassing, but you'll only be admitting to an ignorance shared by most board presidents who send these documents to the FCC.

2. Bureaucratize the problem. Put provisions in your non-profit's procedural guidelines or by-laws that make it more difficult to write these sort of letters. They should stipulate that your group only weighs in on government issues that are immediately relevant to its stated purposes. Or they should require some kind of dialogue with the membership for any endorsement that strays beyond core principles.

Then, whenever these regulatory requests comes in, you can plead that your hands are tied. Damned red tape! Who wrote those rules anyway? Sorry.

3. Speak for yourself. If a telco or ISP that has given your group money comes knocking, and you don't think that you can turn down an endorsement request (or turn down the group's donation), at least write your statement as narrowly as possible. GLAAD's letter, with its "our community" rhetoric, implied that the organization saw itself as speaking for LGBT people everywhere. In retrospect, this clearly was not the case.

Instead, try to frame your endorsement as coming from a few individuals on your board, such as your president, CEO, or some technical subcommittee within your organization. Keep the broad language about your membership or the population that your nonprofit represents out of the picture. By portraying the merger blessing as coming from just a few people, you can at least protect yourself from the charge that you are putting unwelcome words in the mouths of your constituents.

It would be a great thing if the big ISP, telco, and media conglomerates that ask for these letters from their grant recipients stopped doing so. Judging by the lengthy merger orders that the FCC releases when it makes final decisions, the Commission rarely takes these missives into consideration anyway, and the informed public invariably sees them as quid pro quo documents.

But until corporate America reconsiders this tactic, the GLAAD episode suggests that nonprofits have to stop seeing these endorsements as the mere cost of raising money, and instead come up with better strategies for handling such requests.

Share this story

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

What ever gave GLAAD the idea that they could just "casually" support the merger? Especially when so many non-profits are apparently a little biased when it comes to donations......

Because it's nothing new. What's a bit novel in this case is that the endorsement does seem to run counter to their typically expressed political support (gay rights groups tend to be notably left of center, where opposition to this merger seems to be strongest), but even then it's far from existing in a vacuum.

I was having a hard time figuring out why a LGBT group would give a crap about a telco merger. Let's see ... LGBT rights ... telco/net neutrality/etc ... I didn't see the connection. I didn't see how them endorsing this merger would promote or defend or whatever LGBT rights. It would be like chicken farmers writing in to support two Ball Point pen companies merging; there doesnt' seem to be a motive or purpose.

But then the elaboration of (edit) financial interests (I should say) comes into play and ... oh ... (light bulb).

It seems ass backwards for *whatever* Community group to tell it's members "Hey, fyi we (therefore you) support this!" instead of the members of said community coming together to tell the organization as a whole supports whatever. But then again, what good would that do for corporate sponsors?

"The story had a crowd-sourcing feel to it, with many journalists and activists pouring over letters to the FCC, GLAAD and AT&T financial records, and other data in order to determine what happened between AT&T and GLAAD."

"The story had a crowd-sourcing feel to it, with many journalists and activists pouring over letters to the FCC, GLAAD and AT&T financial records, and other data in order to determine what happened between AT&T and GLAAD."

"The story had a crowd-sourcing feel to it, with many journalists and activists pouring over letters to the FCC, GLAAD and AT&T financial records, and other data in order to determine what happened between AT&T and GLAAD."

should be poring, surely?

Nope, they grabbed buckets.... I think.

Also, GOOD FOR LGBT. Way to step up to the plate. Love those guys.

On that note; hell yeah. It's nice to see laymen actually pay attention to a tech issue for a change. Though, I suspect the umbrage stems from the fact that the LGBT community is currently under fire at all times. As such, they must pay attention to anything and everything coming their way at all times (so to speak).

What's surprising to me is that all of this is so transparent now that I'm surprised the big companies even bother. The value of a letter from GLADD on phones has to be approximately zero. No?

In a perfect world, you'd be correct.

In the world of bureaucracy? More than you'd want to give it credit for. Various "community" groups such as minorities groups, disabilities advocates, and gay rights groups like GLAAD can potentially swing, and in the past have swung, policy deliberations within the FCC. Whether or not they ultimately change the end result is much less clear, but they do have an effect on how the the commission frames its decision-making.

Suggestion #4 to non-profits: If you receive funds from a corporation and choose to write a letter supporting that corporation, don't simply hide that information and hope no one finds out. Admit it right at the bottom your support letter: "GLAAD receives financial support from AT&T."

In CNN.com articles, they always add a disclaimer if the subject of their story is a corporate brethren.

OT but I just got done hiking in the mountains in NC this weekend. On the mountain top, I got really good AT&T service 3G and was able to MMS/email pics and videos and make phone calls without issue. In town I received no AT&T service at all of any kind. Was nice to have no internet for awhile. The weird part is that the mountains were northwest of the town, and the next largest town is south-southeast, which is Winston-Salem. There were no cell towers in the mountains - they are a national park and I climbed the highest peak, couldn't see any towers. But it was very weird being able to email a video of my hike to my family from the top of the mountain but have no service in town, only 45 minutes from Winston-Salem.

4. Don't be a corrupt fuck who sells his organization's endorsement to the highest bidder.

If they were truly "selling to the highest bidder" they could've probably held out for a crapton of cash from Sprint - this smacks more of "we know you, you've worked with us in the past, we'll throw you a bone."

4. Don't be a corrupt fuck who sells his organization's endorsement to the highest bidder.

If they were truly "selling to the highest bidder" they could've probably held out for a crapton of cash from Sprint - this smacks more of "we know you, you've worked with us in the past, we'll throw you a bone."

Are you for real? I see, GLAAD endorsed an irrelevant company on a topic not germane to anything the organization is involved in, because they are familiar with AT&T and have worked with them in the past, not because they get money from them. Right.

4. Don't be a corrupt fuck who sells his organization's endorsement to the highest bidder.

If they were truly "selling to the highest bidder" they could've probably held out for a crapton of cash from Sprint - this smacks more of "we know you, you've worked with us in the past, we'll throw you a bone."

Are you for real? I see, GLAAD endorsed an irrelevant company on a topic not germane to anything the organization is involved in, because they are familiar with AT&T and have worked with them in the past, not because they get money from them. Right.

Didn't say there wasn't money involved - just that it's not "the highest bidder". Right now Sprint seems content to go bankrupt trying to tie up the merger... if GLAAD simply wanted cash, they could've just scored millions.

I was having a hard time figuring out why a LGBT group would give a crap about a telco merger. Let's see ... LGBT rights ... telco/net neutrality/etc ... I didn't see the connection.

Well theoretically, any minority or marginalized group should support a free and open internet to avoid the majority limiting their ability to communicate. Imagine if $Telco decided that the GLAAD website was too "extremist" or "outside the mainstream" to support. Or, more likely, GLAAD does not pay the telco to prioritize its traffic while Anti-GLAAD does pay to prioritize traffic. Now Anti-GLAAD's message is easier to access than GLAAD's.

Feel free to substitute NRA, Linux, or whatever $Group-you-support for GLAAD in the above paragraph.

I seem to recall civil rights groups complaining about a la carte cable bundling, some while back. But the advocacy was more direct, stations like BET and Spanish-speaking channels worried about dropping off the dial, so they enlisted the support of these groups. But GLAAD advocating for AT&T, seems damn shady, doesn't pass the smell test.

Cares about what? The AT&T merger? Or the fact that an organization sided with a large corporation who gives them money, rather than the people whom they are supposedly representing? Yeah, who cares about that.

Is there really much of a point? In the end the US government is run by the corporations and even if the merger falls through, in the end, the corporations will win. Just like the FCC chairman quitting and going over to the dark side.

You have to remember that the large corporations make the large "campaign" contributions to the politicians (I prefer to call them exactly what they are, bribes), whereas, the average person gives very little or nothing at all. The politicians know where their bread is buttered and it certainly isn't with the average person.

I find it hard to support many of these big national charities. I supported HRC for a while, but the amount of junk mail they sent me asking for additional donations was beyond reason. It starts to feel like the charity only exists to raise more money for itself rather than to further its actual mission. I've moved my money to more local charities who are working for progress in my own state and seem a little more involved in achieving actual progress.

Cares about what? The AT&T merger? Or the fact that an organization sided with a large corporation who gives them money, rather than the people whom they are supposedly representing? Yeah, who cares about that.

This reminds me of AARP and Medicare donut holes.

What were they thinking?

edit: added reply to save space:

fletc3her wrote:

I find it hard to support many of these big national charities. I supported HRC for a while, but the amount of junk mail they sent me asking for additional donations was beyond reason. It starts to feel like the charity only exists to raise more money for itself rather than to further its actual mission. I've moved my money to more local charities who are working for progress in my own state and seem a little more involved in achieving actual progress.

I like to check national programs against Charity Navigator. As you can see by the link, actual program expenses for the HRC Foundation (there's a separate wing called just HRC that includes lobbying and isn't rated) are under 73%. I'd agree with you and support a local charity instead, in a situation like this.

As a licensed gay, I especially liked this line: <blockquote>Imagine that a couple of days following the release of your endorsement letter, some journalist from the business press buttonholes you at a benefit dinner or similar event.</blockquote>

Then the pronoun turned out to be feminine (not that there's anything wrong with that).

As for the GLAAD debacle, I'm happy this went down, but it has little to do with #1 on our secret agenda.

Is there a group that advocates for middle-class, godless white males? I'd like to make sure they aren't messing things up for me.

GLAAD might be the group for you. You didn't say hetero or homo.

Errr... middle-class, godless, hetero white male.

You might be dialing down a bit specific, but there are some men's movements you could join: the masculinity movement, father's rights movement, men's lib. The book Fire in the Belly seems to be a focal point so that might be somewhere to start. A lot of them are church based, but it's also possible to find weekend retreats and things that aren't tied to a church, or are more affiliated with new age beliefs, sweat lodges and whatnot.

I was having a hard time figuring out why a LGBT group would give a crap about a telco merger. Let's see ... LGBT rights ... telco/net neutrality/etc ... I didn't see the connection.

Well theoretically, any minority or marginalized group should support a free and open internet to avoid the majority limiting their ability to communicate. Imagine if $Telco decided that the GLAAD website was too "extremist" or "outside the mainstream" to support. Or, more likely, GLAAD does not pay the telco to prioritize its traffic while Anti-GLAAD does pay to prioritize traffic. Now Anti-GLAAD's message is easier to access than GLAAD's.

Feel free to substitute NRA, Linux, or whatever $Group-you-support for GLAAD in the above paragraph.

Hey! Linux users are not "fringe". Now if you'll excuse me I have to go sacrifice a goat to almighty Torvalds (PBUH) so that he will bless my IP tables.

I saw obvious evidence of this behavior years ago when I attended California Public Utilities Commission hearings regarding the merger - RE-merger - of SBC and AT&T. The room was packed with representatives of various non-profits and local community organizations, and EVERY SINGLE one of them was there to proclaim support for the merger.

Why? The CPUC requires that utilities "give back" a portion of their profits to the cities and counties they serve; these groups correctly anticipated that the merged company would be even more profitable, and thus their shares of the resulting pie would also be even larger.

Ugh that line QUEERTY said really hit home; living in MN and watching our state gov't shutdown because Mark Dayton wants the whole pie (I.E. not giving concessions to come together for a budget agreement that everyone knew about) instead of just a slice baffles me to no end; So now our state services are shutdown in the most profitable time of year, and road construction which we desperately need is shuttered to to wait until Mark gets his ways /rant

As far as the article goes Matthew; great stuff. I always like when people don't realize how much buying out your 1st amendment rights really costs you.

When will these corporations and politicians really cut to the chase, and bribe me directly rather than channeling it through support groups and whatnot? Its easy, first one to send me a nice crisp $50 bill gets my vote.

But until corporate America reconsiders this tactic, the GLAAD episode suggests that nonprofits have to stop seeing these endorsements as the mere cost of raising money, and instead come up with better strategies for handling such requests.

So far, that strategy works pretty well for them so they won't change - this case unfortunately is the exception. Note the article mentioned GLADD and the NAACP but only GLADD got raked over the coals - there isn't an equivalent article on the NAACP.

Not to mention this is typical corporate methods - pay off the people who can push your agenda. See "US Government."